On 27/07/2004 15:21, Alexander Savenkov wrote:
...
I can't guess what is considered by "many in Tatarstan". And I think
you shouldn't be guessing too as it makes no difference in our case.
If someone, in spite of the law, consider killing people to be ok,
it's a matter of court.
There is a law against killing people, but that doesn't mean that it
doesn't happen. Unicode encodes characters in actual use, not only those
officially defined by governments. Even if use of the Latin alphabet
were illegal in Tatarstan (and it is not illegal, just unofficial), if
there is evidence that people actually use it, Unicode needs to support
that alphabet.
...
Btw, I remember reading you visited Azerbaijan, so you know
the situation there better. I.e., you should know that many Azerbaijan
officials write their public speeches in Cyrillic script, so
the secretararies need to transliterate them into Latin before
publishing.
This is true, and proves my point. Cyrillic script is not the official
script in Azerbaijan, and may not be used in publications, signs etc.
Nevertheless, it is in widespread use. Therefore, Unicode needs to
support it. The same applies to the Tatar Latin script.
5) This is an alphabet which has been used, even in official
websites, and very likely continues to be used by some. Decisions
made in Moscow do not change this, especially because they are in
practice widely ignored in Tatarstan
Once again, Peter, you're going off the topic. You're invited to prove
your assumptions with facts or withdraw them. I personally consider
statements of this kind as veiled attacks to Russia's statehood.
Please, stop that.
I am merely reporting the facts as I understand them. Decisions of the
Moscow government are not always obeyed in Tatarstan. Decisions of the
London government are not always obeyed in parts of Northern Ireland -
although I don't think any of the disputed ones are relevant to Unicode.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
